E 407 
.K205 
Copy 1 



SPEECH 



MR. DAVID S. KlIIFMAN, OF TEXAS 



ON THE StJBJECT OF 



THE MEXICAN WAR. 



DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U. S., JUNE 20, 1846,. 



WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED BY J. &> G. S. GIDEON. 

1846. 



SPEECH. 



The Bill providing; for the redaction of the tariff to a revenue standard being under considera- 
tion in the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union — 

Mr. Kaufman addressed the committee as follows: 

Mr. Chairman: I congratulate the friends of the revenue principle on the 
favorable auspices under which they have entered upon the discussion of 
this bill. It is known to you and the country, that one of the favorite ar- 
guments of the friends of the protective policy at the North, has been, that 
it would be suicidal in the United States to permit the introduciion of Bri- 
tish manufactures into this country, while England closed her ports to our 
grain and breadstuffs. This argument, which has done more than all others 
beside to make a protective tariff popular with the farmers of the North has 
been lately silenced; for we have just received the gratifying intelligence 
that the old and aristocratic corn laws of England have been repealed , and 
•that henceforth our farmers will find a market for the products of their soil 
in ports hitherto closed to them. To preserve that market, it is evidently 
our policy to reciprocate, as far as we can, and to remove all restrictions 
upon imports from abroad, so far as is not incompatible with raising the re- 
venue necessary to keep the wheels of the Federal Government in motion. 

But, Mr. Chairman, fruitful and inviting as is the question now legiti- 
inately under consideration, and deepl}^ interested as my constituents are in 
jits proper disposition, I do not now propose to discuss it. In the wide range 
allowed to debate, when the House has resolved itself into committee, ano- 
ther question has been raised by members in their discussion of this bill, 
which demands my first and especial attention. 1 allude, sir, to the Mexi- 
ican war. While every patriot in the land feels a deep and abiding interest 
in its vigorous prosecution and speedy and successful termination, yet, opin- 
ions have been advanced in this debate \\h\c\\ peculiarly concern the people 
whom I have the honor in part to represent on this floor. In the hasty zeal 
of certain gentlemen to attack the President for ordering the United Slates 
troops to march to the Rio Grande, (the western boundary of Texas, as de- 
fined by the Constitution of my State,) they have struck a blow at the in- 
tegrity of her soil wtiich I must attempt to parry, and which, if their opin- 
ions were correct, would curtail the once ''lone" but now "bright and par- 
ticular star" of one-half her fair proportions. 

I shall first endeavor to show, Mr. Chairman, that the Rio Grande is- 
rightfully the western boundary of the State of Texas; and, in the ^cond 
place, that if it w?.s a matter of doubt, yet, under the circumstances, it was 



4 

t"he bounden duty of the President to act as he has done, and protect eveiy 
inch of soil claimed by Texas in her fundamental law, and under her in- 
dependent organization, from the pollution of foreign invaders. 

I confess, sir, that it sounded strange to my ears, to hear, upon this floor ^ 
the right of Texas questioned to the eastern bank of the Rio Grande. With 
a residence of upwards of nine years in that country, mingling in its legis- 
lative councils, and among its citizens, many of whom had on the ^Hented 
field" contributed to her independence, I say to you, and to this commit- 
tee, that I have never heard her right questioned to the soil between the 
Nueces and Rio Grande, and to have done so would have been considered 
treason to "the Republic of Texas." May it be owing to the fact, they 
have not had the benefit of that ''bookish" information afforded the Repre- 
sentatives here, or to those other facts, that they have mingled in the fray 
which made Texas, throughout her wide limits, sovereign and independent, 
and that they have been accustomed to pay no regard to the expositions of 
Mexican diplomacy, which claims, even at this day, the whole of Texas tO' 
the Sabine. 

The honorable gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. Stephens,) thinks the 
Rio Grande "ought to be" the western boundary of Texas; and what he 
thinks ought be, I will endeavor to show "is, and always has been/' the 
rightful boundary of Texas. 

That Texas extended to the Rio Grande, and belonged to the United 
States, previous to the transfer to Spain in 1819, I presume will not be 
questioned; if it were, I could produce, in proof of it, the concurring testi- 
mony of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and indeed all our leading statesmen? 
who have been on the stage of political actionfrom the purchase of Louis- 
iana, in 1803, to the present day, Mr. John Q,uincy Adams, in a letter tO' 
the Spanish Minister, Don Onis, dated March 12th, 1818, says: "The- 
claim of France always did extend westward to the Rio Bravo. She always 
claimed the territory which you call Texas, as being within the limits and 
forming a part of Louisiana." He (Mr. Adj^ms) goes on to reiterate a de- 
claration made by Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney in 1803, "that the claim 
of the United States to the boundary of the Rio Bravo was as clear as their 
right to the island of New Orleans." And again, on the 31st October^ 
1818, he says: "Our title to Texas is established beyond the power of fur- 
ther controversy." 

Mr. Clay, also, in his celebrated Raleigh letter, previous to the last Pres- 
idential election, says: "The United States acquired a tide to Texas, ex- 
tending, as I believe, to the Rio del Norte , by the treaty of Louisiana. 
They ceded and relinquished that title to Spain by the treaty of 1819, by 
which the Sabine was substituted for the Rio del Norte, as our western 
boundary." I might here also quote the declaration of the celebrated Bri- 
tish statesman, Mr. Huskisson, as to the western boundary of Texas: "De- 
sig^te are entertained by the people of the United States to get possession of 
the fertile and extensive Mexican province of Texas. They look to alt 
the country between the Sabine and Bravo del Norte, as a territory that 
must, ere long, belong to their Union." — Speech, May 30, 1830. (The 
Rio Grande, Rio Bravo, and Del Norte, are different names for the same 
river.) 

Enough has been read to show, conclusively, that the ancient limits and 
boundary of Texas was the Rio Grande. But this country was ceded ixk 



1819 to Spain. However binding this treaty may have been considered by 
the United States, yet, its being made without the consent of the people of 
Texas, it was a palpable infraction of that provision of the Louisiana treaty 
©f 1803, which declared that "the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall 
be incorporated into the United States, and admitted, as soon as possible, 
according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of 
all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States," 
and therefore, according to reason and authority, null and void — at least, it 
was not binding, except by the power of force, on the disfranchised citizens 
of Texas. Not only did that people not consent to this surrender, but they 
sent forth, at ''old and time-honored Nacogdoches," an eloquent protest 
and remonstrance, {Pronunciamoito ,) and declared that they would not 
submit to be the subjects of the priest-ridden monarchy of Spain, and they 
sever did submit to that degradation. That protest was in the name of all 
Texas, throughout its ancient limits, and it is fully worthy of being copied 
-at length. It is as follows: 

" DECLARATION OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF TEXAS. 
" The Louisiana Herald contains a copy of a Declaration, issued on the 23d June, (1819,) by 
the Supreme Council of the Republic of Texas. The following extracts contain all that would 
be interesting to the American reader : 

*' The citizens of Texas have long indulged the hope that, in the adjustment of the boundaries 
of the Spanish possessions in America, and of the territories of the United States, they should 
ht included within the limits of the latter. The claims of the -United States, long and strenuously 
urged, encouraged this hope. An expectation so flattering, prevented any effectual effort to 
throw off the yoke of Spanish authority, though it could not restrain some unavailing rebellion, 
against an odious tyranny. The recent treaty between Spain and the United States of America 
has dissipated an illusion too long fondly cherished, and has roused the citizens of Texas from 
the torpor in which a fancied security had lulled them. They have seen themselves, hy a con- 
vention to lohlch they were no party, literally abandoned to the dominion of the crown of Spain 
and left a prey, not only to impositions already intolerable, but to all those exactions which 
Spanish rapacity is fertile in devising. 

"The citizens of Texas would have proved themselves unworthy of the age in which they 
live — ^unworthy of their ancestry — of the kindred republics of the American continent — could 
they have hesitated in this emergency, what course to pursue. Spurning the fetters of colonial 
Tassalage, disdaining to submit to the most atrocious despotism that ever disgraced the annals of 
Europe, they have resolved, under the blessings of God, to be free. By this magnanimous re- 
solution, to the maintenance of which their lives and fortunes are pledged, they secure to them- 
selves an elective and representative government, equal laws, and the faithful administration of 
justice, the right of conscience and religious liberty, the freedom of the press, the advantages of 
. liberal education, and xmrestrlcted commercial intercourse with all the world. 

"Animated by a just confidence in the goodness of their cause, and stimulated by the high 
-object to be obtained by the contest, they have prepared themselves unshrinkingly to meet, and 
firmly to sustain, any conflict in which this declaration may involve them. 

" Done at Nacogdoches, this twenty-third day of June, in the yea,r of our Lord 1819. 

" JAMES LONG, 
'' President of the Supreme Co^tnciL 

■" Bis*LE Tarin, Sec'ri/." 



Surrendered and deserted by the American Government, Texas, wealsf 
in numbers and influence, found herself, in 1821, a part of independent 
Mexico, and for fifteen long years she was ^'tlie sport and victim of succes- 
sive mihiary revokitions," carried on at a far distant capitol, without any 
consent on her part, except that imposed by force. She was curtailed of 
her ancient proportions and hmits — other States encroaching upon her, she- 
was tied to the car of Coaliuila, forming together the State of Coahuila and' 
Texas, and denied, but promised, ?i separate existence; and when the prom- 
ise was asked to be complied with, her commissioner was thrown into prison 
for his presumption. All this was done at the city of Mexico, and I admit 
that Texas was reduced in her limits to the Nueces, but with no other bind- 
ing force upon her than that which power imposes. This arbitrary reduc- 
tion and curtailment of her limits is the foundation of all the modern decla- 
mation as to the Nueces being the western boundary of Texas. But Texas 
began to grow in strength and power, and "the might that slumbered in a. 
freeman's arm" was eventually to be awakened — her long lost rights vindi- 
cated, and her ancient limits to be restored. As an evidence of her increase 
in wealth and influence, I will here quote an extract from a report made by 
General Almonte, who was sent to Texas by Santa Anna in 1834, to re- 
connoitre the country, preparatory to its being overrun and despoiled of the 
few vestiges of liberty yet left it. 

"The state of that Colony (Texas) is most flourishing," says Almonte; "it bids fair to be- 
come the best portion of the Mexican confederation — tmnquility reigned in all the setllementSy, 
whose plantations and productions were rapidly increasing; no less than 5,500 bales of cotton,, 
of 450 lbs. each, would be exported this year (1834) from the settlement of the Brazos alone. 
A small steam-boat was shortly expected at San Filipe de Austin from New Orleans, for the 
transport in the interior of passengers and goods, independently of many other contemplated 
improvements, which would powerfully contribute to the advancement of that prosperous: 
Colony." (Niles' Register, Nov. 29th, 1834, page 199.) 

The editor goes on to remark, that "the accounts pretty plainly show that 
Santa Anna is gathering up the elements of a despotic power." The pre- 
diction proved correct. He came at the head of the flower of his army, 
and the best appointed troops uf Mexico; and at San Jacinto, in 1836, the 
tale of his disaster was told; and Texas, ancient Texas, was again free. 
Santa Anna, who it will be recollected was then President of Texas, and its 
virtual dictator, having destroyed the Mexican States, and erected a military 
despotism on their ruins, was taken a prisoner. All the powers of the Mex- 
ican Government were centered in his person. He then, to save the 
the honor and lives of that portion of the army under General Filisola, 
their arms, ammunition, and public property, from falling into the hands of 
the Texians. and to restore h'xm&tii tind felloio-prisoners to liberty? signed a: 
treaty w^ith the Government of Texas, by which he agreed to acknowledge 
her independence, and to the Rio Grande. 

Article 3 provides, "The Mexican forces will ev.icuate the Texian terri- 
tory, and recross the Rio Qrancle.''^ Here is an acknowledgment that the 
east bank of the Rio Grande is Texian territory. It is contended, however, 
that Santa Anna being a prisoner, the Mexican nation is not bound by that 
treaty — a position which I shall endeavor to refute. I am willing to ad- 
rait, that if this treaty had been made by Santa Anna for his own individual 



benefit^ and the Mexican nation had received no advantages from it, that it 
would not be binding upon that people. But if that nation received ad- 
vantages from the treaty — if they received a full consideration for all the 
concessions made to Texas, (if concessions at all they were,) then she is 
morally bound by it. It is laid down as a principle of municipal law, that 
*'if a man be legally imprisoned, and either to procure his discharge, or amj 
other fair account, seals a bond or deed, this is not by duress of imprison- 
ment, and he is not at liberty to avoid it." Coke's Inst., 2d vol., 482. 
Now what was '^^/ie /mV accowwi" which Santa Anna had in view, and 
effected by this treaty? The honor, lives, liberty, and property of the Mex- 
ican army. And these being secured, can the nation of which he was the 
representative be permitted to '^avoid" the treaty? But this treaty between 
the Mexican President and the Government was afterwards revived between 
General Rusk, the commander of the Texian forces, and General Filisola, 
second in command to Santa Anna, who never was a prisoner. What was 
the view that he, (Filisola,) who knew the despotic and unlimited powers 
with which Santa Anna was invested, took of the matter? This is an ex- 
tract from his reply . 

" It becomes now my duty to take every necessary measure to carry your last instructions 
into execution. This convention (the treaty) being duly drawn, with all formalities, and bear- 
ing the signature and ratification of your excellency, as General-in-Chief of the army of operations, 
which, jointly with your quality as President of the Mexican Republic, leave me neither right nor 
faculty of resisting your orders, my duty is to obey and promptly put them in execution." 

Fihsola, in a statement made to his Government on his return to Mexico, 
said, that the safety of his army entirely depended on his complying with, 
that treaty. And what does Santa Anna say in his manifesto to the Mexi- 
can Government, after his liberation. Hear him: 

" I learned, at the arrival of General Woll, that at the first news of my misfortune, the whole- 
(Mexican) army was thrown into confusion, and that instead of attacking the enemy, a retreat 
to Matamoras had actually begun." 

Again : 

" It was thus that I complied with his (Houston's) wishes, by signing the order for a sus- 
pension of hostilities; thus saving the honor of the Mexican army, and the lives of more than 
500 (5,000 he might have said) Mexicans, who might otherwise have been placed in great jeop- 
ardy," 

And further, he says: 

" Now, by clearly analyzing both conventions, (alluding to the secret and public ones,) it will 
be found that both had for their object a suspension of hostilities in favor of our (the Mexican) 
army, the delivery of the prisoners, (taken at San Jacinto,) as well as my own liberty, which I 
believed, though perhaps erroneously, might prove beneficial to the former, as likewise to the na" 
tion and its caitse." 

Such, sir, are the advantages which the Mexican nation received at the 
hands of Texas, in consideration of her relinquishing her unjust claims to 
what I have previously shown were the ancient limits of Texas, and ^'out 
of their own mouths have I condemned them." And to remove the least- 
shadow of an excuse for the Mexican people to refuse to acknowledge this 
treaty, they, no doubt, feeling a proper sentiment of gratitude for the ad- 



8 

vantages gained by it on their part, subsequently, in 1841, elevated Santa 
Anna again to the supreme power. In addition to the lives, liberty, and 
property of the Mexican army, saved by this treaty, its honor, it is admitted, 
was also preserved. For the protection of the three first, governments are 
instituted amongst men; and without the last, a nation would sink into in- 
efficiency and degradation, 

^'The glory of a nation is intimately connected with its powers," says 
Yattel in his excellent treatise on the Laws of Nations, '^and, indeed, 
forms a considerable part of it. It is this brilliant advantage that procures 
it the esteem of other nations, and renders it respectable to its neighbors. It 
is of great advantage to a nation to establish its reputation and glory." 

And can it really be contended, Mr. Chairman, that all these advantages 
are to accrue to Mexico by the forbearance, humanity, and magnanimity of 
Texas, greater than her victorious arms, without even Mexico being bound, 
as stipulated, to recede from the "soil" of Texas, on which she had 
''^^ trespassed" in an hour of our weakness? Such a doctrine w^ould shock 
every principle of justice. In foro conscientim it cannot be sustained, and 
to that forum all treaties must be submitted. If nations choose to disregard 
tlieir treaties, there is no tribunal to resort to to enforce them, except the ' 
arbitrament of the sword. All independent nations are sovereigns, and no 
one has a right to adjudicate for another. Texas has the right to that boun- 
dary, and if not "peaceably" acknowledged, it must be "forcibly" vindi- 
cated. The advantages acquired by Texas at San Jacinto over the Mexi- 
can army, (and would have acquired but for the treaty,) over Filisola and 
his men, would have enabled her to extort her independence from Mexico, 
within the whole extent of her ancient limits. Although Mexico has received 
her panic-stricken army and the public property at the hands of Texian 
forbearance, yet she uniformly refused to pay the price of their liberation, 
and the preservation of their endangered honor. If she had indignantly 
sent her army back to Texas as unworthy of preservation, and had forever 
repudiated hai captured chief as having basely, and without consideration, 
surrendered up a portion of her just claims, and not again elevated him to 
power, then there might have been some excuse for refusing to acknowledge 
the treaty; but as they have not done so, there is no excuse whatever. 

It is said, however, Mr. Chairman, that Texas violated the treaty in re- 
gard to Santa Anna's liberation. This is incorrect. Every article of it was 
faithfully carried into execution. Article 10 provides as follows: "General 
Antonio Lopez De Santa Anna shall be sent to Yera Cruz as earltj as the 
2^exian Government may think proper. ^^ Santa Anna was in due time 
sent by the Texian Government to Vera Cruz, and by such a route, and in 
such a manner, as he himself publicly admitted was most consistent with his 
personal safety. 

I will now produce the highest Mexican testimony that the people of 
Texas in 1844 were in the possession of the country between the Nueces 
:and Rio Grande, although their possession is styled a usurpation. General 
Woll, acting under express orders from the Mexican Government at Mier, 
June 20th, 1844, issued the following order: 

*' 3. Every individual who may be found at the distance of one league from the lefl bank of 
the Rio Bravo, will be regarded as a favorer and accomplice cf the xiswpns of thai part of the .^Ta 
■^iio'nal (erritcry, and as a traitor to hia country." 



Although the order did not embrace one league along the Rio Grande, 
yet the declaration of usurpation, or unlawful possession by the Texians, 
applies to the whole territory on the east bank of the Rio Bravo. And well 
could General WoU say so. Although Vasquez and himself, in the year 
1842, had each crossed the Rio Grande and made attacks on the unprotected 
town of San Antonio de Bexar, yet their retreat before the Texians was 
more rapid than their advance. They ^'^ re-crossed ihe Rio Grande" in such 
a manner as to give eminent force and propriety to Mu Webster's declaration 
in reply to Bocanegra. Speaking in his character of Secretary of State in 
regard to Texas, July 8,1842, more than three months after Vasquez's in- 
vasion and retreat, he says: 

" (Texas,) practically fiee and independent, acknowledged as a political Soverignty by the 
principal powers of the world — no hostile foot finding rest within her temtory for six or seven years — 
,and Mexico herself refraining for all that period /ro?n any further attempt to re-establish her own 
authonty over that territoi~y — it cannot but be surprising to find Mr. Bocanegra complaining, that 
for that whole period citizens of the United States, or its Government, have been favoring the 
T-ebels of Texas, and supplying them with vessels, ammunition, and money, as if the war for the 
reduction of the Province of Texas had been constantly prosecuted by Mexico, and her success 
prevented by these influences from abroad." 

When General Somerville, in 1842, marched into Laredo, on the left 
bank of the Rio Grande, he met with no opposition from any Mexican ar- 
my; and it was not until a portion of his brave and gallant men, under the 
chivalric Gen. Fisher, went to Mier, on the rig'ht bank, that they could get 
a fight. Indeed the Texas Rangers, under the gallant Hays and McCul- 
iough, have for years held undisputed sway over that tenritory, and we have 
had such occupation of it as its condition and the wants of our population 
permitted or required. No Mexican forces have ever been stationed on the 
lefi bank; all their war manifestoes are dated on the right. And, although 
it must be admitted that we have never taken actual possession of Santa Fe, 
and the friendship of the people there for American institutions has been 
prevented from exhibiting itself by a few military tyrants, yet, if on account 
of its distance from the principal settlements in Texas, or the exhausted 
condition of our finances, we have not found it necessary or convenient to 
take possession of our estate, we must be shewn the statute of limitations 
which bars us before our right to it is questioned. 

There is, Mr. Chairman, another ground of title to which I might refer, 
and which must carry conviction to at least one honorable member of this 
committee. It will be recollected that during the Oregon discussion, while 
one gentleman based our right to all that country on purchase, another on 
discovery and occupation , and a third on coiitiguity , that the aged and 
venerable gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Adams,) repudiated all these 
grounds, and sent to the clerk, to be read as his ground of our title, the 
26lh, 27th, and 28ih verses of the 1st chapter of Genesis. Now, if that 
honorable gentleman were in his seat, I would ask him, with all good feel- 
ing, and with that respect due to his age and his distinguished public ser- 
vices, whether the doctrines of Genesis don't apply to the Rio Grande as 
well as to Oregon; and whether he at least would not concede that our title 
is good to the Rio Grande as he formerly contended; from documentary tea- 



1^ 

timony, that the title of the United States to the Rio Grande was as clear 
as to (lie island of Orleans. 

But, Mr. Chairman, I must hasten to my second position, and that is, to 
prove that the President, under the circumstances, was bound to pursue the 
course he did in sending the army to ihe Rio Grande. By an act of the 
Texas Congress in 1836, her western boundary was declaied to be ihe Rio 
Grande. By a provision of the present constitution of the State of Texas, 
all laws of the Republic of Texas were declared in force, not inconsistent 
with the joint resolutions of annexation, or the Constitution of the United 
States. It will not be denied that each State has a right to form her owa 
limits, unless restricted by the United States. Now, how far is Texas re- 
stricted in regard to this question of boundary? The adjustment of her 
boundary is to be settled by the United States with all other governments. 
Until that adjustment is effected, one portion of the soil claimed by her is 
as much entitled to protection by the Executive of the United Slates as 
another; and he would be recreant to his duty, and to the faith pledged to- 
Texas, were he not to do so. Can the President usurp the dangerous 
power of saying, himself,, how far the boundaries of a State are to be ex- 
tended, and that here he will afford protection, and there none? Or ought 
he to have submitted to the humiliation and disgrace of having our western 
boundary dictated to him by Mexico, and pointed out with the supercilious 
air of a tyrannical master? Were the rights, interest, and honor of a sister 
of this glorious confederacy nothing, who had submitted her boundaries to 
your negotiation; and those of Mexico all sacred, although she scorned 
your peace mission as unworthy of her, and appealed to the law of force? 
And if the President were to think of such assumption of power, or such 
degradation, amidst the conflicting claims of Mexicans, he would not know 
where to draw the line. The Mexican minister, Mr. Pena Y Pena, would, 
drive him entirely out of Texas; while Ampudia, the chief in command at 
Matamoras, only ordered General Taylor east of the Nueces. The former 
in his letter to Mr. Black, dated October 15th, 1845, says : •' The Mexican 
nation is deeply injured by the United States through the acts conmiitted 
by them in the D<ipartintnt of Texas, which belongs to this nation.'''' 

I have just stated that General Ampudia ordered General Taylor to retire 
to the east of the Nueces. This order is dated April 12, 1846, twenty-two 
days after Mr. Slidell had received his passports to return home. Ampudia 
says : " I require yuu in all form, and at the latest peremptory tertn of 
twenty four hours, to break up your camp, and retire to the other bank of 
the Nueces river, while our governments are regulating the pending ques- 
tion of Texas! !^^ Dated ai Matamoras, "I o'' clock, P. M., April i2thy 
1846. 2 o'' clock I ! very precise as to the hour. It seems that this vahant 
General, who ^'boils the heads of his unfortunate victims in oil," was fear- 
ful that he would not have an opportunity of showing his bravery against 
the Americans and therefore gives a length of time so short, that if disponed. 
General Taylor could not have complied with it. And whet) the battle 
came on, we And him breaking at the first fire, '^ across the Rio Grande," 
leaving Arista and the gallant Vega to bear the brunt; and the next we hear 
of him, he basely and perfidiously charges Arista with having betrayed ihe 
army, which he (Ampudia) had deserted. And he has since succeeded in 
having Arista removed from the command; and ordered to Mexico. But 



li 

what was the reply of General Taylor to this redoubtable and insolent herov 
Read it. It is the language of a brave old soldier^ and speaks volumes in 
defence of the Adtninistration : 

Headquarters Army of Occupation, 

Camp near Matamoras, Texas, April 12, 1846 . 

Senor Ampudia : I have had the honor to receive your note of this date, in which you sum*- 
mon me to withdraw the forces under my command from their present position, and beyond 
the river Nueces, until the pending question between our governments, relative to the limits of 
Texas, shall be settled. 

I need hardly advise you that, charged as I am, in only a military capacity, with the perfor- 
mance of specific duties, I cannot enter into a discussion of the international question involved 
in the advance of the American army. You will, however, permit me to say, that ffte gocerri'- 
merit of the United Slates has constantly sought a settlement, by negotiation, of the question of boundary ;■ 
that an envoy was despatched to Mexico for that purpose, and that, up to the most recent dates 
said envoy had not been received by the actual Mexican government, if indeed he has not re- 
ceived his passports and left the republic. In the mean time, 1 have been ordered to occupy 
the country up to the lefl bank of the Rio Grande, until theboundary shall be d^nilively settled. In 
carrying out these instructions I have carefully abstained from all acts of hostility, obeying, in this rer 
gard, not only the letter of my instructions, but the plain dictates of justice and humani'.y. 

But this adjustment was to be made by the Government oi the United 
States, and I admit it was the duly of the President, as the head of the Go- 
vernment, to use all lawful and proper means for its peaceable adjustment. 
Has he done so? Notwithstanding the abrupt and insulting termination of 
General Ah-nonte's mission in March, 1845, immediately after the passage 
by the United States of the annexation resolutions, the President, deeply 
anxious that the acquisition of Texas should be peaceable, proposes to the 
Mexican Government to send " an envoy from the United Slates, intrusted 
with full powers to adjust all the questions in dispute between the two Go- 
vernments." He was answered through Mr. Black, our consul at Vera 
Cruz, on the 15th October, 1845, by that Government, that '' it was dis- 
posed to receive the com m,issio iter of the United States, who may come to 
this Capitol with full powers from his Government to settle ihe present dis- 
pute in a peaceful, reasonable, and honorable manner." '' The Mexican 
Government, believing this invitation to be made in good faith, &c." 
The Hon. Mr. Slidell was sent and rejected on a quibble. It was said that 
the Mexican Government agreed to receive a " commissioner" and not au 
'^ envoy," and that it was only the present dispute that they were willing 
to settle, and not " all questions in dispute," as proposed by the United 
States. Now it may be possible that their acceptance of our proposition was 
made in the manner it was, in order to serve as a hole to creep out of , should 
it be deemed necessary by that Government; but that is hardly probable, and 
could not for a moment be so understood by the United States; for the 
Mexican Government receives our proposition as '^ made in good faith," 
and in the communication of Mr. Pena Y Pena to Mr. Black, of October 
31st, 1845, he speaks of the '^' pending questions," as it was expressed and 
proposed by the United States. After asking the United States to withdraw 
its navy from Vera Cruz during the pendency of the negotiations, he says : 
" It would be an evidence of proceeding in good faith and with sincerity 
towards the pacific arrangement of the ^ pending questions'' between 
Mexico and the United States." In this last communication just quoted^ 



12 

all the questions are spoken of as matteis of settlement by this commissioner 
or envoy. 

.That the Mexican Government used the word '^ commissioner" as 
synonymous with envoy, or minister, when they agreed to receive " the 
commissioner," (proposed by the United States,) is conckisively proven by 
the correspondence which took place. 

Mr. Pena Y Pena, in his communication to the (Mexican) council, dated 
December 11th, 1845, after Mr. Slidell presented himself and credentials, 
says : " I have the honor to submit to the council, through the medium of 
your excellency, the documents relative to the appointment of a commis- 
Gioner of the Government of the United States of America, for the peacea- 
ble settlement of the questions at issue between the two Republics." Now 
the " document," or letter of credence of Mr. Slidell, styles him " envoy 
extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary," and yet he is styled by the 
Mexican secretary as commissioner, &c. In the same communication, and 
same page, Mr. Pena Y Pena, says : '' Mr. .John Slidell has arrived in 
this capitol as commissioner of the United States, ^'c," when in fact his 
commission styled him an envoy, &c., &c. 

But what right had the Mexican Government to demand a separate settle- 
ment of the questions of dispute between us and them ? If, in their opinion 
the annexation was wrong, were not their previous spoliations upon our 
commerce also wrong; and would not reason and Justice say, that they 
ought to be settled together ? But Mr. Slidell was rejected! The minister of 
peace was spurned! The cup of American forbearance was drained to the 
very dregs! And yet, Mr. Polk, still relying on their '■'■ sober second 
thought," did not recommend a declaration of war ; but he immediately 
set about to defend the soil of Texas, as he was bound to do, from the 
threatened invasion. He had the army marched to a position on the fron- 
tier, (the place for an army) in order that if war came it might not be in 
the heart of the settlements, interrupting and stopping the peaceful and use- 
ful occupations of the farmer and husbandman. 

He sent the army to protect a county of the State of Texas, which was 
represented in the Senate of the Republic of Texas, in her convention, and 
in the present Senate of the State of Texas by that able, enterprising, and 
useful pioneer, (Hon. H. L. Kinney,) who has for years been a resident 
citizen in that portion of territory lying between the Nueces and Rio Grande; 
a portion of country recognised as independent of Mexico by the United 
States and the principal powers of Europe. He believed it his duty to pro- 
tect that portion of the Congressional district represented on this floor by my 
honorable colleague, and a collectoral district unanimously (I believe,) es- 
tablished by this Congress. Who, placed under similar circumstances with 
the President, could have, or would have, acted differently ? Who would 
have , or could have , declined an issue literally forced upon him ? An ad j ust- 
ment would not be listened to by Mexico. The President's oath, then, 
bound him to see that the laws were faithfully executed to protect the coun- 
try in all its parts, and to repell invasion if attempted. " And this extent 
hath his offence — no more." 

And here, Mr. Chairman, I ask the indulgence of the committee, in 
noticing a remark which fell the other day from an honorable representa- 
tive from Ohio, (Mr. Sawyer.) He charged the Texas Senators with 



/ 



13 

voting to give away Oregon r.ordi 'of 49^, after one of them had made a 
speech in favor of 54° 40'. As to the proceedings of the Senate in regard 
to Oregon they are yet veiled in secrecy, and I know not how any member 
voted. But as to the speech of one of those honorable Senators, (Gen, 
Houston,) 1 will say, that if it is in favor of 54° 40' it has escaped my at- 
tention. But, however the Texas Senators may have voted or spoken, I 
feel perfectly convinced that ,they acted in such a manner as they deemed 
best calculated to promote ihie best interests and honor of their country. 
Their patriotism is above suspicion or impeachment. They acted a most 
distinguished part in redeeming an empire from the dominion of alternate 
anarchy and despotism, and consecrating it to the cause of freedom. 

As to the question of Oregon , I have not been called on to vote, and have 
not given it that critical examination which I certainly should have done if 
required to exercise that responsibility. But whatever may be the present 
decision in regard to Oregon north of 49°, its manifest and ultimate destiny 
is incorporation into our Union. It is as certain to be ours as that Texas is 
now part of the United States. The operation of " the American multipli- 
cation table," together with a little '^ masterly activitif on the part of the 
residents of the soil when the struggle comes, will do the work. Indeed, 
I feel a perfect conviction that the day is not far distant, when not one atom 
of kingly power will disgrace the North American Continent. May that 
time speedily arrive, is the prayer of every true republican and friend of the 
rights of man. 

One other matter. It has been charged, not on this floor, but by some of 
the press opposed to the war, that the people of Texas have been backward 
in rallying to the standard so gloriously planted and defended on the Ric^ 
Grande. This is false. They have pressed to the field with an enthusiasm 
worthy of the cause which called them; and when the hour of battle comes, 
they will be behind none of their valiant compeers in ^Meeds of noble 
daring." They have noble pioneers in the gallant and daring Walker and 
his Spartan band, and they will not prove themselves unworthy to be their 
associates. Texas has more than her full complement of 2,400 men in the 
field, and some of them had to travel 700 miles by land to reach the Rio 
Grande, 

But to return from this digression. 1 trust I have shown that the Pre- 
sident has not exaggerated when he declared that ''American blood had 
been shed on American soil,'' ' and that it was produced by Mexico in her 
obstinate and faithless refusal to negotiate with this Government, and send- 
ing her army across the Rio Grande to commence the attack. She has 
chosen the alternative of war instead of peace, and we have no choice but 
to carry on the war, or basely surrender our rights. The wrongs of our citi- 
zens must be redressed, and the boundary must he finally settled, or it will 
remain a never-ending source of contention and discontent. Peace must be 
conquered by the sword! We must have ''indemnity for the past and se- 
curity for the' future." I have no hesitation in saying, painful as is the re- 
flection, that there is no safety but in a vigorous and energetic prosecution of 
the war. If you slop to negotiate, your humanity will be construed into 
treachery or cowardice. Your enemy will have time to recruit his broken 
strength, and theresourcesof the nation will be squandered in inactivity and 
inglorious ease. It was Hannibal who loitered at Canna, after his splendid 



14 

victory, and Rome was saved. Let us profit by the warning voice of his- 
tory. If the Mexican Government were now to make us the most faithful 
promises what security have you that they will be complied with ? Where 
is Mexican faith? It sleeps in Goliad's grave! Let your army be disband- 
ed, and return home, and you will find they will again have to be called to 
the field. You will thus spend millions in going to and from the field of 
battle, and yet your object will not be accom polished. From the refusal of 
the Mexican Government to negotiate heretofore, 1 am perfectly satisfied that 
there can be no adjustment of the questions in dispute except at the ^'can- 
non's mouth." The war must be carried on until the people of Mexico 
see the folly of their rulers, and compel them to measures of peace. The 
people there are grossly deceived by their leaders, and nothing but painful 
evidence to the contrary will make them open their eyes to the deception. 
Would it be believed, sir, that notwithstanding the brilliant victories achiev- 
ed by '^Old Rough and Ready" on the ever memorable fields of Palo Alto, 
and Resaca de La Palma, that a Mexican officer at Tampico (A. Parrode) 
could have the hardihood to issue a proclamation, in which occurs the fol- 
lowing language: 

" The enemy, (Americans,) passed from the fort favored by the dense smoke of wood on fire, 
which protected them from our shot. Thushave our enemies escaped .'" 

Thousands in Mexico, perhaps to this day, know no better. The ignor- 
ance of that people, and their inability to read, the scarcity of newspapers, 
and those that are there being under the control of corrupt leaders, wljo 
blind the people to their real situation for their own selfish purposes, are the 
lamentable causes of this lack of correct information. Besides, the preju- 
dices of the Mexican people against the United States have been artfully in- 
flamed to the highest pitch. The administration in power agreed to ac- 
knowledge the independence of Texas if she would not annex herself 
to the United States. It was not Texas that she cared about, but only that 
the United States might not get it. And this act of President Herrera's cre- 
ated no outbreak in Mexico against him, but it was only after they found 
that he agieed to receive a mission of peace from the Government of the 
United States that a revolution took place, and he was hurled from his place 
by one whose chiefest recommendation to civil power was his ''eternal and 
uncompromising hostility" to the United States. Although our Govern- 
ment was the first to welcome Mexico in the sisterhood of nations, yet that 
is all forgotten in the present deadly strife. It has been truly said that when 
quarrels take place between neighbors or relatives they are attended with much 
more bitterness than among strangers. This is the lamentable state of oiu* 
relations with Mexico, and they are facts which must be looked full in the face 
and met. They must have th ^ir influence in the policy that is pursued in re- 
gard to this war. I wouicl not indicate what should be received as satisfaction 
in the settlement of this controversy. The people whom I have the honor to 
represent upon this floor have the most perfect confidence in the integrity, 
patriotism, and ability of the President, and they feel that the interests and 
honor of the country are safe in his hands. He has ''kept the faith" with 
them and with the people of the Union; and whatever others may have 
said or done in slander of our title to every inch of soil within the ancient 
limits of Texas, they have met with no approbation or sympathy from him. 



15 

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to be misunderstood; I would not have this 
war carried on a moment longer than is necessary to its successful termina- 
tion. I have a feehngfor our neighbors more akin to sympathy than hatred 
or vengeance. It is to prevent further and greater evils between us hereafter, 
that would make me desire demonstrations of our power further in the in- 
terior. But whenever it can cease with some tolerable certainty of perma- 
ne7icy, let it be done. The President , in the same spirit which actuated him 
in sending a minister there, has said that he will be happy to receive propo- 
sals of peace from that Government whenever offered, and that he will even 
tender the olive branch whenever a^^wrec? that it will be received; and I 
honor him for the declaration. How does -this put to flight all the charges 
of his having brought the country unnecessarily and intentionally into a 
war ? With that declaration , safely, prudently, but not prematurely/ carried 
out, the people will rest content. 

Although I fear, Mr. Chairman, that I have said but little to interest the 
committee, and to repay them for their polite and courteous attention, yet I 
can claim the credit at least of giving variety to the debate, by examining a 
question which, although it has been agitated before during the progress of 
this bill, is at least new in this day's discussion. 



. j.E>i\nr\i v»i %<wi 



011 446 850 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




011 446 850 2 



/ 



